DASHRATH GHARAT,URAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1604/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 October 20264 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had explained the reasonable cause for the delay and the Revenue did not have specific objections. The appeal was admitted. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had challenged the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. However, the provided text of the judgment is incomplete and cuts off before the Tribunal's decision on the merits of the appeal or the validity of the ex-parte order. Therefore, the finding on the substantive issue and the operative directions are not recorded in the provided excerpt. The Tribunal's decision on the validity of the assessment and the additions made by the A.O. remains undecided in this portion of the judgment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dashrath Gharat, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed with a delay of 61 days, for which the assessee submitted an application for condonation. The Revenue did not object, and the delay was condoned. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) received information from the Insight Portal indicating the assessee sold immovable property for Rs. 1,20,67,000/- in the Financial Year 2014-15. The assessee had not filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The A.O. initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, to which there was no compliance. Subsequent notices under section 142(1) and 133(6) were also issued, seeking explanation and evidence regarding the property sale, but the assessee did not respond.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal given the delay in filing, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Procedural issue turning on the Tribunal's rules and discretion). The assessee sought condonation of the 61-day delay in filing the appeal. The Revenue did not raise specific objections to the condonation. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer, is valid? (Issue of mixed law and fact turning on principles of natural justice and assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act). The assessee challenged the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which upheld the additions made by the A.O. The A.O. had made additions based on the assessee's failure to respond to notices regarding the sale of immovable property and failure to file a return of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex- parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

2.

At the time of hearing, it was brought to the knowledge of the bench, that there is delay of 61 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay by the assessee. On consideration of the facts and information mentioned in the affidavit, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld.

ITA.No.1604/PUN/2025 Dashrath Gharat

DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, the Income Tax Department has received information from the Insight Portal that the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs. 1,20,67,000/- in the F.Y. 2014-15 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and fallowed the due process of law and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act on the and there was no compliance. Further notice was issued u/sec 142(1) of the Act on various dates and a show cause to explain the sale transaction of immovable property along with evidences and there was no response. The A.O has issued notice u/sec 133(6) of the Act on the Sub

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →